See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280147380

ACCURATE SURVEYING MEASUREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS

DEFORMATION

Conference Paper · April 2005

CITATIONS READS

16 791

3 authors, including:

Ashraf A. A. Beshr
Mansoura University
68 PUBLICATIONS 485 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashraf A. A. Beshr on 31 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACCURATE SURVEYING MEASUREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL
MEMBERS DEFORMATION

1 2
Dr. Zaki M. Ziedan Dr. Hisham M. Abou Halima
3
Eng. Ashraf A. A. Beshr
1
Associate prof., Public Works Dept., Mansoura University, EGYPT
2
Associate prof., Public Works Dept., Mansoura University, EGYPT
3
Assistant lecturer, Public Works Dept., Mansoura University, EGYPT

Abstract
The safety concepts form the basis of modern structures design and assessment codes. The detailed
information about the structural deformations can help to determine the health of these structures, as
well as to evaluate whether such deformations are the same as those the structure was designed to
tolerate. This paper investigates an integrated monitoring system for the estimation of the
deformation behavior of structural members. Three different surveying techniques (precise leveling,
one and two total stations measurement techniques) are presented to evaluate the deformation
behavior of structural members. The comparison study between the surveying and structural
techniques for computation the structural deformation is introduced and discussed. These
techniques are applied to measure the structural deformation of reinforced concrete beams. Finally,
the three used surveying techniques with a special mathematical and adjustment models can be used
in monitoring the structural deformations with high accuracy. Moreover, the surveying techniques
can be motorized to give the continuous monitoring the structural deformations. The results of the
practical measurements, calculations and analysis of the interesting deformation using least squares
theory and computer programs are presented.

Keywords: Deformation, Monitoring, Precise leveling, Total Station, High Strength Concrete,
Beams.
1. Introduction
The security of civil engineering works demands a periodical monitoring of the structures. In many
civil structures like bridges, tunnels and dams, the deformations are the most relevant parameters to
be monitored. So monitoring the structural deformation and dynamic response to the large variety
of external loadings has a great importance for maintaining structures safety and economical design
of man-made structures. Dial gauge, accelerometer, Tiltmeter, etc. are traditional tools and methods
to measure structure displacement, rotation and together with temperature, wind speed and direction
allow the comprehensive investigation of structure dynamics behaviors [4,6]. These tools must be
installed, maintained, and frequently recalibrated to produce reliable results. The collected data
from these tools need to be interpreted to obtain direct geometric results which in many cases is
 very complicated procedure and out of the control of the general structural engineers [5, 11]. Hence,
a flexible surveying technique is needed to overcome these obstacles, and make the process of
measurements easier and more accurate.

2. Pre-analysis study of the used surveying techniques

Pre - analysis of the surveying measurements is the analysis of the component measurements before
the project is actually undertaken [8]. Main items to be considered in the pre-analysis study of a
certain survey project are:
1- Possible surveying techniques, and thus the corresponding mathematical model.
2- Available instruments (cost, simplicity and the precision of a single measurement) [9].

2.1 Precise leveling method:

Monitored Object
From figure (1), a beam is considered as C.L (Beam)
BM1 BM2
a monitoring object, point (O) is the occupied
A B C D
station and it is preferable for level to run S2 S3 S3 S2
S1 S4
where the line of sight is perpendicular on D

the monitoring object. Points (A, B, C and D)

are monitoring points, two fixed reference points Instrument
Position
(BM1, BM2) are used to check for potential (O)
movement of various points on the beam.
Figure (1) The geometry of monitoring
From the instrument position (O), aims at
by leveling technique
points (BM1, A, B, C, D and BM2) and records
all left and right scales readings.

When the double observing procedure with double scales (left and right scale) rods is used, four
readings are taken at each setup, and the height difference at each setup is calculated by:

( BLi − FLi ) + ( BRi − FRi )

∆hi = ..…………(1)
2

Where BLi, FLi and BRi, FRi are the backsight and foresight readings respectively. The distances
between the instrument and expected rod position are not equal, so the systematic errors must be
taken into consideration by applying the necessary corrections to the raw data [10]. The variance of
∆ hi is then determined by the error propagation method as following:

2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
σ ∆ hi = σ B Li + σ F Li + σ B Ri + σ F Ri ………….(2)
4 4 4 4
2.2 One total station technique:

L
M o n ito re d S tru c tu re
Z

H
B
N S
Y
α γ Z B

A XB
Z A
XA
YB
YA
X

P o in t ( A ) is th e k n o w n c o o r d in a te s p o in t ( o c c u p ie d S ta tio n )
P o in t ( B ) is th e m o n ito r e d p o in t ( S h e e t P ris m )

Figure (2) The geometry of one total station technique

From figure (2), a local three-dimensional coordinates system is needed to calculate the spatial
coordinates of any target point. The X-axis is chosen arbitrary as a horizontal line in the direction of
the base of the monitoring building, where the Y-axis is a horizontal line perpendicular to the
building base direction and positive in the direction towards the monitoring object, and the Z- axis
is a vertical line determined by the vertical axis of the instrument at occupied station. There is a
known coordinates point (A), and these coordinates are (XA, YA, ZA). From this point, we can
monitor the movements of any point (B) in space in order to determine its local coordinates (XB,
YB, XB).

The coordinates of point (B) can be determined from the following:

X =X + ∆X
B A A−B
X =X + S cosγ .sinα
B A
Y =Y + ∆Y
B A A−B ………….. (3)
Y =Y + S.cosγ.cosα
B A
Z =Z + ∆Z
B A A−B
Z =Z + S.sinγ
B A

Where:
(S) is the slope distance between the instrument and the monitoring point, (α) is the horizontal
angle, and (γ) is the vertical angle. From figure (2), we have three unknown parameters (XB, YB,
XB) i.e. U=3, and there is no redundancy (r = 0). Then this has a unique solution, so the multivariate
propagation technique will be used [9]. By using the covariance law:

C X = J .C l .J T
……………(4)
( 3 ,3 ) ( 3 ,3 ) (3,3) ( 3,3 )

Where:
(CX) is the variance covariance matrix of unknowns, (J) is the Jacobian matrix, and (CL) is the
variance covariance matrix of observations. We can put equations (3) in the matrix form as follows:

 ∂X ∂X ∂X   ∂X ∂Y ∂Z 
  2  
 ∂S ∂α ∂ γ  σ l 0 . 0 0 . 0   ∂ S ∂S ∂S 
σ X 2 σ XY σ XZ 
 2
  ∂Y ∂Y ∂Y     ∂X ∂Y ∂Z 
σ YX σ Y σ YZ  =   .  0 . 0 σ α 2 0 . 0  . 
   ∂S ∂α ∂γ     ∂α ∂α ∂α 
2
σ ZX σ ZY σ Z    2  
 ∂Z ∂Z ∂ Z   0 .0 0 .0 σ γ   ∂ X ∂Y ∂Z 
 ∂S  
 ∂α ∂ γ   ∂γ ∂γ ∂ γ 
Then, we can deduce that:
∂X 2 2 ∂X 2 2 ∂X 2 2
σ 2X = ( ) σS +( ) σα + ( ) σγ
∂S ∂α ∂γ
……(5)
σ 2 X = (cos γ sin α ) 2 σ S 2 + ( S cos γ cos α ) 2 σ α 2 + ( − S sin γ sin α ) 2 σ γ 2

∂Y 2 2 ∂Y 2 2 ∂Y 2 2
σ 2Y = ( ) σ s + ( ) σα + ( ) σγ
∂S ∂α ∂γ
σ 2Y = (cos α cos γ )2σ S 2 + (−S cos γ sin α )2σ α 2 + (−S sin γ cos α )2σ γ 2 …. (6)

2 ∂Z 2 2 ∂Z 2 2 ∂Z 2 2
σ Z = ( ) σ + ( ) σ α + ( ) σ γ
∂α ∂γ
s
∂S
2
……(7)
σ 2
Z = (sin γ ) 2 σ 2
s + ( S cos γ ) 2 σ γ

2.3 Two total station technique

The two total stations technique employees the intersection process in three dimensions to
determine the spatial coordinates of a specific target. Figure (3) illustrates the geometry of the two
total stations technique. A local three-dimensional rectangular coordinates system is needed to
calculate the spatial coordinates of any target points. There are two known coordinates points (XA,
YA, ZA) and (XC, YC, ZC). From these two known points (A and C), we can determine the
coordinates of unknown point B.

L
M onitored Structure
Z

H
B
 γ2
γ1
α2
α1

Figure (3) The geometry of two total stations technique

From figure (3), there are three unknowns (XB, YB, ZB) and six observations (two slope distances
S1, S2, two horizontal angles α 1, α 2, and two vertical angles γ1, γ2). Then the least squares
adjustment technique will be used to get the most probable value of unknowns. The observation
equation technique will be used. In this model of adjustment, the number of equations is equal to
the number of observations (n = 6).

The two lengths of the lines (S1, S2) in the space can be written as:

S1 = (X B − X A ) 2 + (Y B − Y A ) 2 + ( Z B − Z A )2
…………(8)
S2 = (X B − X C ) 2 + (Y B − Y C ) 2 + ( Z B − ZC )2

The two lines (S1, S2) can be resolved into two components in the horizontal projection as:
AB = S1 cos γ1
………….(9)
CB = S2 cos γ2

By using the coordinate’s formulae, the two lines AB and CD can be written as follows:

AB = ( X B − X A ) 2 + (Y B − Y A ) 2

CB = (X B − X C ) 2 + (Y B − Y C ) 2 ………(10)
From figure (3), the two horizontal angles (α 1 and α2) can be calculated as follows:

AB 2 + AC 2 − CB 2
α 1 = arccos ( )
2. AB. AC
………(11)
AC 2 + BC 2 − AB 2
α 2 = arccos ( )
2. AC .BC
By using the coordinates formulae, we can write equation (11) as:

( X B − X A )2 + (YB − YA )2 + AC2 − ( X B − X C )2 − (YB − YC )2

α1 = arccos[ 2 2
]
2.AC. ( X B − X A ) + (YB − YA ) …….….(12)

( X B − X C )2 + (YB − YC )2 + AC2 − ( X B − X A )2 − (YB − YA )2

α2 = arccos[ ]
2.AC. ( X B − X C )2 + (YB − YC )2

From figure (3), the two vertical angles (γ1 and γ2) can be calculated as following:

ZB − Z A
γ 1 = arctan [ ]
2 2
( X B − X A ) + (YB − YA )
…………(13)
ZB − ZC
γ 2 = arctan1[ ]
( X B − X C )2 + (YB − YC )2

The equations (8), (12) and (13) are the six observation equations; these equations are nonlinear
functions of parameters. They can be treated by least squares adjustment technique. The first step in
the solution is finding the approximate values of unknowns. Referring to figure (3), the coordinates
of point (B) can be computed according to the following formula [1,7]:

0 AC . cot α 1
X =
cot α 1 + cot α 2
B

AC …………..(14)
Y B0 =
cot α 1 + cot α 2

Z B0 = Z A + S 1 . sin γ 1

By substitute these approximate values in the six observation equations, the approximate values of
observations (L0) can be computed, then the steps of least squares technique using the observations
equation can be done to calculate the coordinates of point (B) and their accuracy.

3. Structural Data Analysis

Structural analysis is required to determine whether significant movements are occurred between
the monitoring campaigns. Geometric modeling is used to analyze spatial displacements. General
movement trends are described using a sufficient number of discrete point displacements (dn):
dn (∆x, ∆y, ∆z) for n = point number
Point displacements are calculated by differencing the adjusted coordinates for the most recent
survey campaign (f), from the coordinates obtained at reference time (i), as following:
 ∆X = Xf – Xi is the X coordinate displacement
∆Y = Yf – Yi is the Y coordinate displacement …………(15)
∆Z = Zf – Zi is the Z coordinate displacement

Each movement vector has magnitude and direction expressed as point displacement coordinate
differences. These vectors describe the displacement field over a given time interval. Comparison of
the magnitude of the calculated displacement and its associated accuracy indicates whether the
reported movement is more likely due to observations error [6].
│dn│< (en)

Where:
│dn│ is the magnitude of the displacement for point n. It can be calculated as:

dn = ( ∆ X ) 2 + ( ∆ Y ) 2 + ( ∆Z ) 2 …………….(16)

and (en) is the maximum dimension of combined 95% confidence ellipse for point (n), it can be
calculated as following [6]:

e n = 1 . 96 . (σ ) 2 + (σ i ) 2 …………….(17)
f

Where:
σf is the standard error in position for the (final) or most recent survey,
σi is the standard error in position for the (initial) or reference survey.
Then
│dn│< (en) the point isn’t moved.
│dn│> (en) the point is moved.
4. Experimental program

The structural application consists of four reinforced concrete beams, which are tested in Steel
laboratory in faculty of Engineering - Mansoura University to estimate the deformation of these
beams subjected to specified loads [3]. The four tested beams have the same section (225 cm*20
cm*12 cm), but differ in reinforcement. They have the same number of bars at upper and lower
reinforcement. Two of them have 2Φ12 and the others have 2Φ16. The steel used is high mild steel.
The beams also have 5Ø6/m/ as stirrups. High Strength Concrete (HSC) mix is used [3].

5. The used materials and instruments

Ordinary Portland cement and natural sand with high fineness modulus of 2.65 and Coarse
aggregate (natural gravel) with a maximum size of 12 mm are used. Powder silica fume with SiO2
of 92%, specific gravity of 2.2 and specific surface area of 16.8 m2/g is used. High Range Water
Reducers (HRWR) superplasticizers with trade name (Conplast 430) are used to improve both fresh
and hardened concrete properties. The High Reinforced Concrete is applied for this paper.

The automatic precise level NI007, two 3m double scale invar staves, two total stations (DTM 850
and SET300), sheet prisms of diameter 1 cm and calibrated dial and strain gauges are used in the
field measurements. The accuracy of all instruments and effect of the systematic errors are taken
into considerations during the practical measurements.

6. Expected surface movements

The searching for the “best” deformation model is based on either a priori knowledge of the
expected deformations or a qualitative analysis of the deformation trend deduced from all the
observations taken together. So, investigation and studies on the beam deformation by the available
structural software are done to predict the expected deflections values. Structural Analysis Program
(SAP) is a software program using the finite element system to find the straining actions at each
nodal of the element. The model geometry is entered in terms of features, which are subdivided,
into finite elements in order to perform the analysis but the analysis is done in the elastic stage.

7. Discussion on results
Actually, the full results are shown in M. Sc. thesis [3]. The important and vital results are
displayed in the fowolling:
7.1 Analysis of precise leveling observations
Precise leveling tested the first beam; L= 225 cm

the beam face was divided into four L/2 =112.5cm L/2 =112.5cm

sections distributed as shown in figure (4 ).

L0/5 = 41 cm L0/5 = 41 cm
Load cell
The selected monitoring sections are
located where the maximum deformations
4 3 2 1
have been predicted such as section (3),
plus a few sections which is depending Support Rod Support
L0 = 205 cm
on previous experience could signal
10 cm 10 cm
any potential unpredictable behavior
Figure (4) Geometric layout of the monitoring beam and
such as sections (1,2 and 4). These
the rod positions
sections are located by using calibrated
steel rods, which are arranged to be visible from
the location of the level. Calibrated dial gauges are arranged also at sections (2,3 and 4). The
resulting surveying data must be converted into meaningful engineering values. Then, the adjusted
difference in elevations and its standard deviations for all loading cases can be calculated. The
standard deviations of the displacement for the four monitoring sections are varied from 0.03 mm to
0.06 mm. The comparison of the magnitude of the calculated displacement in vertical direction and
its associated surveying accuracy will be done. Table (1) shows sample output of the comparison. A
Comparison between the deflection values from precise leveling and Dial Gauge readings is
illustrated in table (2).

Load Section-2 (mm) Section-3 (mm) Section-4 (mm)

(Ton) Leveling D.G Leveling D.G Leveling D.G
0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0
0.35 0.17 0.24 0.26 0.38 0.13 0.22
0.70 0.38 0.45 0.67 0.79 0.34 0.42
1.05 0.97 0.78 1.47 1.28 1.03 1.16
1.40 1.52 1.17 2.00 2.04 1.23 1.6
1.75 1.82 1.64 2.93 2.91 1.68 2.07
2.10 1.97 2.08 3.13 3.86 1.88 2.5
2.45 2.47 2.53 5.46 4.74 2.08 3.03
2.80 3.96 3.39 7.53 6.26 4.52 3.88
3.15 6.23 5.88 11.46 11.2 6.34 6.14
3.50 7.72 8.24 16.50 16.04 7.93 8.48
3.85 11.87 11.6 23.24 22.95 11.78 12.04
4.20 18.82 18.80 38.28 37.28 18.43 17.98

Table (2) Comparison between deflections from precise leveling and dial
gauge readings

Section-2 Section-3 Section-4

Load ∆Z enV ∆Z ∆Z enV ∆Z ∆Z enV ∆Z
(Ton) (mm) (mm) Adjusted (mm) (mm) Adjusted (mm) (mm) Adjusted
0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00
0.35 0.25 0.080 0.17 0.35 0.098 0.26 0.20 0.069 0.13
0.70 0.45 0.069 0.38 0.75 0.085 0.67 0.40 0.057 0.34
1.05 1.05 0.080 0.97 1.55 0.084 1.47 1.10 0.069 1.03
1.40 1.60 0.084 1.52 2.10 0.106 2.00 1.30 0.074 1.23
1.75 1.90 0.080 1.82 3.05 0.120 2.93 1.75 0.069 1.68
2.10 2.05 0.085 1.97 3.25 0.123 3.13 1.95 0.075 1.88
2.45 2.55 0.084 2.47 5.55 0.098 5.46 2.15 0.074 2.08
2.80 4.05 0.087 3.96 7.65 0.120 7.53 4.60 0.077 4.52
3.15 6.30 0.069 6.23 11.55 0.098 11.46 6.40 0.057 6.34
3.50 7.80 0.080 7.72 16.60 0.106 16.50 8.00 0.069 7.93
3.85 11.95 0.085 11.87 24.35 1.116 23.24 11.85 0.075 11.78
4.20 18.90 0.080 18.82 38.40 0.120 38.28 18.50 0.069 18.43

It is obvious that the resulted deflection values from the precise leveling analysis are very close to
those from dial gauge readings. The differences between the two techniques are too small. The
relationship between the acting forces and the resulting deflections deduced from precise leveling
for section (3) is illustrated in figure (5). As indicated in table (2), the deflection values at section
(2) are close to the values at section (4) because the two sections are at equal distance from support.
The maximum deflection values at section (3), because this section is at mid span of the beam. The
values of deflection at section (1) – at support- due to the rotation of the beam resulting from the
loading

Relation between Load and deflection for section (3)

4.50

3.75

3.00
Load
2.25
(ton)
1.50

0.75

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection (mm)

Figure (5) The relationship between the acting loads and the
resulting deflection from leveling at Sec. (3)
7.2 Analysis of one total station observations

L= 225 cm

L/2 =112.5cm L/2 =112.5cm

L0/5 = 41 cm L0/5 = 41 cm
Load cell

2 cm 2 13
10 9 8 7 6
16 cm d = 20 cm 5 6\m
1 2 3 4 5
2 cm 2 13

Support Support b = 12 cm
L0 = 205 cm
(b) Cross Section
10 cm (a) Vertical plane with monitored points 10 cm
of beam

Figure (6) Geometric layout of the monitoring beam and

Monitoring points
The second beam is tested by using the one total station technique. The beam face is divided into
ten monitoring points. The spatial distribution of these points should provide complete coverage of
the beam as shown in figure (6). The selected monitoring points are located where the maximum
deformations have been predicted such as
points (3 and 8), plus a few points which
is depending on previous experience could
signal any potential unpredictable behavior
such points (1,2,4,5,6,7,9 and 10). These
points are located by using sheet prisms
of diameter (1 cm), which are arranged
to be visible from the location of the
used total station as shown in figure (7). Figure (7) The tested beam with the concentrated
load and prisms

A comparison between the magnitude of the calculated coordinate differences and their associated
accuracy in Z direction for loads 0.35, 0.7 and 1.05 ton as a sample output is shown in table (3). The
values of ∆Z and enV can be calculated as:

2 2
e nv = 1.96 * σ ∆h i + σ ∆h0 …………(18)
and
∆zi = zi − z 0 ………….(19)

Load = 0.35 ton Load = 0.7 ton Load = 1.05 ton

Monitoring
point ∆Z enV Move ∆Z enV Move ∆Z enV Move
(mm) (mm) Or not (mm) (mm) Or not (mm) (mm) Or not
1 -0.2 0.53 NO -0.30 0.53 NO -0.50 0.53 NO
2 -1.2 0.48 0.72 -2.10 0.49 1.61 -2.30 0.49 1.81
3 -1.6 0.40 1.20 -3.00 0.48 2.52 -3.50 0.48 3.02
4 -0.9 0.51 0.39 -1.70 0.54 1.16 -1.90 0.50 1.40
5 -0.3 0.61 NO -0.40 0.63 NO -0.40 0.61 NO
6 -0.3 0.44 NO -0.50 0.48 NO -0.10 0.46 NO
7 -1.2 0.40 0.80 -2.20 0.39 1.81 -2.50 0.39 2.11
8 -1.8 0.49 1.31 -3.40 0.39 3.01 -3.90 0.39 3.51
9 -1.1 0.50 0.60 -1.60 0.49 1.11 -1.90 0.49 1.41
10 -0.3 0.44 NO -0.40 0.46 NO -0.40 0.46 NO

Table (3) Comparison of the magnitude of the calculated coordinate differences and their
associated accuracy for loads (0.35 ton, 0.7 ton, 1.05 ton)
The adjusted vertical displacements of ten monitoring points under all cases of loading are
calculated. Since the displacement of each point was known, the contour lines of the movements in
vertical direction (Z-direction) can be graphically illustrated by using Surfer program as shown in
figure (8).

Contour lines in Z direction in (mm)

Beam length (m)

Figure (8) Deformation contour lines in Z- direction for the

monitoring beam (At failure stage)

The plan spacing between the contour lines indicates the steepness of slopes. From figure (8), it is
obvious that the maximum displacement occurs at mid span and the value decreases towards the
support. A Comparison between the deflection values from one total station technique and dial
gauge readings is illustrated in table (4).

Deflection values of monitored points (mm

Load Section-1 Section-2 Section-3
(Ton) T.S D.G Diff. T.S D.G Diff. T.S D.G Diff.
0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0
0.35 0.72 0.49 0.23 1.20 0.92 0.39 0.39 0.25 0.14
0.7 1.61 1.19 0.42 2.52 1.94 0.58 1.16 0.92 0.24
1.05 1.81 1.66 0.15 3.02 2.80 0.22 1.40 1.28 0.12
1.4 2.01 2.1 -0.09 3.91 3.24 0.67 1.80 1.73 0.07
1.75 2.61 2.68 -0.07 4.72 4.16 0.56 2.42 2.26 -0.06
2.1 3.11 3.24 -0.13 5.52 5.04 0.48 2.6 2.76 -0.16
2.45 3.41 3.76 -0.35 6.12 5.88 0.24 3.9 3.2 0.7
2.8 5.0 5.50 -0.5 9.71 9.61 0.1 4.89 4.86 0.03
3.15 8.91 7.92 0.99 14.61 14.71 -0.1 8.79 7.88 0.91
3.5 11.51 12.37 -0.86 25.11 25.40 -0.29 11.19 11.70 -0.51
4.2 18.91 19.52 -0.61 42.58 41.25 1.33 18.79 18.62 0.58

Table (4) Comparison between deflections from one total station

technique and dial gauge readings

The resulted deflection values from the one total station analysis are very close to those obtained
from dial gauge readings. The differences between the two techniques are too small.. By using the
same structural analysis technique, the adjusted displacements in X- direction can be calculated.
The displacements in X-direction for upper raw of monitoring points (6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) are greater
than the lower raw of monitoring points (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). The maximum displacement value at
point 10 and load 4.2 ton, and this value is 6.93mm. The directions of point’s displacements in X-
direction at failure load can be graphically shown in figure (9).

Load cell

10 9 8 7 6

1 2 3 4 5

Z
Y

X Figure (10) Deformation contour lines in X-

direction (at failure stage)
Figure (9) The directions of points
Displacement in X direction

The contour lines of the movements in horizontal displacement (X-direction) at failure load can be
graphically illustrated by using Surfer Program as shown in figure (10).

The contour lines are closely spaced at support, which indicates a steep gradient. This means that
the displacements in X-direction at support
10 9 8 7 6
are strongly varied. But the contour lines / /
10 6
9/
8/
are widely spaced at mid span, which 7/

indicates that a flatter gradient. This means 1 2 3 4 5

1/ 5/
that the displacements in X-direction at mid 2/ /
4
Z 3/
span are varied slowly. By using the same Y
Total point displacement
structural analysis technique, the adjusted
Actual beam deformed shape
displacements in Y- direction can be calculated. X
It is obvious that no movement in Y- direction
Figure (11) The actual deformed shape of the
occurs. Then, the final deformed shape of the beam at failure stage
monitoring beam at failure stage can be drawn
as shown in figure (11).
7.3 Analysis of two total stations observations

L= 225 cm
The last beam is tested by using the two
L/2 =112.5cm L/2 =112.5cm
total stations technique. The beam face is
L0/5 = 41 cm L0/5 = 41 cm
divided into five monitoring points, the Load cell

spatial distribution of these points should

1 2 3 4 5 10 cm
provide complete coverage of the beam 10 cm

as shown in figure (12). The adjusted

Support Support
L0 = 205 cm
coordinates and its associated accuracy
10 cm 10 cm
of each point in the monitoring network
are calculated by using MathCAD program Figure (12) Geometric layout of the monitoring points
and least squares adjustment technique. For the two total stations observations

A comparison between the deflection values obtained from the two total stations technique and dial
gauge readings is illustrated in table (5).

Load Deflection values of monitored points (mm)

(Ton) Section-1 Section-2 Section-3
T.S D.G Diff. T.S D.G Diff. T.S D.G Diff.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0
0.35 0.0 0.04 -0.04 0.1 0.22 -0.12 0.0 0.13 -0.13
1.05 0.11 0.14 -0.03 0.72 0.78 -0.06 0.29 0.46 -0.17
1.4 0.69 0.77 -0.08 1.39 1.40 -0.01 0.76 0.80 -0.04
1.75 0.98 1.01 -0.03 2.04 2.02 0.02 1.11 1.15 -0.04
2.1 1.26 1.31 -0.05 2.74 2.94 -0.2 1.54 1.65 -0.11
2.45 1.93 1.98 -0.05 4.10 4.0 0.1 2.13 2.27 -0.14
2.8 2.59 2.49 0.1 4.95 4.88 0.07 2.66 2.77 -0.11
3.15 2.88 2.99 -0.11 5.44 5.64 -0.2 3.99 3.19 0.8
3.5 3.54 3.48 0.06 6.74 6.43 0.31 3.47 3.67 -0.2
3.85 4.04 4.04 0 7.18 7.42 -0.24 4.43 4.25 0.18
4.2 5.38 5.20 0.18 9.02 9.36 -0.34 5.36 5.36 0
4.55 6.32 6.87 -0.55 12.06 12.65 -0.59 6.37 6.87 -0.5
4.9 8.6 9.62 -1.02 18.92 18.06 0.86 8.91 9.22 -0.31
5.25 11.94 13.20 -1.26 24.62 25.26 -0.64 13.07 12.40 0.67
6.3 28.92 29.19 -0.27 59.875 61.32 -1.45 26.62 26.92 -0.3

Table (5) Comparison the vertical displacement between two total stations
analysis and dial gauge readings

It is obvious from table (5), that the deflection values from the two total stations technique are very
close to dial gauge readings from p= 0.35 ton to load p=3.85 ton. After load p=3.85 ton, there is
obvious difference because of the vibrations of dial gauge during loading especially the dial gauges
are placed under the tested beam. This dial gauge vibration is one of the disadvantages of using dial
gauge in structural members monitoring.

8. Conclusions
The results of experimental work lead to the fowolling conclusions:
1. The three used surveying techniques (precise leveling, one total station and two total stations) can
provide valuable data on the deflection of the structural members and movement of buildings
because the resulted deflection values from surveying techniques with the discussed adjustment
techniques are very close to the values from dial gauge readings.
2. Precise leveling is valid as a monitoring tool. It can read up to (0.05mm) with deflection accuracy
up to (±0.03 mm).

3. One total station has the potential to be used in monitoring the deformations of the structural
members because it can record the distance to 0.1mm with accuracy (±0.05 mm) in X-direction,
(±0.8 mm) in Y-direction and (±0.14 mm) in Z-direction.
4. The accuracy of the monitoring target coordinates is improved if the two total stations are set in
the site at their best locations instead of using one total station.
5. The accuracy of the monitoring points from one total station technique depends strongly on
horizontal angle, vertical angle and the instrument position distance. The best parameters are:
Horizontal angle (α) = 0 and vertical angle (γ) = 0
For distance, there is no optimum distance. But when the distance (S) between the instrument and
the monitoring point increases, the accuracy will decrease. The effect of horizontal angle variation
on the accuracy in X- direction is more than the effect of variation of the instrument position
distance. For Y-direction, the effect of the instrument position variation is more than horizontal and
vertical angle variation. In Z-direction, the accuracy depends mainly on the vertical angle value.
6. The upper surface displacement in X-direction of the beam is more than lower surface due to the
rotation of the beam under loading.
7. Achieving the required accuracy for surveying monitoring technique is based on the following
factors:
a- The used instruments specifications (instrument resolution, data collection options and the proper
operating instructions).
b- The field observing and modeling procedures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The experimental work was carried out in the structure and steel laboratory of civil engineering
department of Mansoura University, EGYPT. All the academic and technical staff at the public
works and structural departments is gratefully acknowledged.
 REFERENCES
1- Allan A.N., 1996, “ Surveying Building Surface by Theodolite Intersection” Survey Review.
2- A. M. Behairy, 1991, " Application of First Order Design Problem to Building Construction
Surveying Networks”, Faculty of engineering, Shobra, Zagazig University. Paper, CERM-Vol.

(13), No. (6) 1991-DD 88-105

3- A. A. Beshr, 2004, “ Accurate Surveying Measurements for Smart Structural Members “ M.Sc.
Thesis, Mansoura University, Public Works Department, faculty of Engineering, El-Mansoura,
Egypt.

4- Brown C.J., Karuna R., Ashkenazi V., Roberts G.W. and Evans R.a, 1999, “ Monitoring of
structures using the Global Position System”, Institute of Engineering Surveying and Space
Geodesy, U.K.

5- G.W. Roberts, A.H. Dodson and V. Ashkenazi, 2000," Comparison of GPS Measurements and
Finite Element Modeling for Deformation Measurements of the Humber Bridge”, Institute of
Engineering Surveying and Space Geodesy, U.K.

6- Joseph Schroedel, June 2002," Engineering and Design- Structural Deformation surveying ",
U.S Army Corps of Engineering, U.S.A
7- Khalil M.M., 1991, “Best Location of Theodolite stations for Monitoring Deformations of
buildings”. M.Sc. Thesis, Cairo University, 84 pp
8- Mikhail, E.M. and Gracie, 1981, "Analysis and Adjustment of Survey Measurements", Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. U.S.

9- N. El-Sheimy, 2001,”Adjustment of observations”, Department of Geomatics Engineering,

University of Calgary, Canada. First Version.
10- Pavel Vyskocil, 1982, “Refraction in Leveling ". U.K. Survey Review.
11- Teskey W.F. and Porter T.R., 1988," An Integrated Method for monitoring the deformation
Behavior of Engineering Structures”, International (FIG) Symposium on Deformation
Measurements (5th: New Brunswick, Canada).

View publication stats